Phallarchist

I love that phrase and the concept of giving a man the sensation of taking a virgin. He should have the satisfaction of struggling valiantly against your reluctant cunt and pushing through your comfort zone into the tight passage beyond.

It's a perfectly reasonable definition, but why not just say "I get sucked" or "I fuck skull"?

Most terms are inadequately specific. Is an "oral top" a man who penetrates orally (leaving unclear his anal practice, if any), or a man who will insist on sucking dick before anally penetrating? Why bother with the codes and animal categories? Just explain what you mean, specifically. No one's paying by the word for space in a newspaper.

I think it's fine for a man to make a woman lick his anus, because it's purely an act of submission on her part. She doesn't have a penis and can't penetrate him. He can enjoy the anal sensations and degrade her at the same time. It's all to his advantage. He'll end up glowing with fuck-pride as she tries to brush the taste of his ass off of her tongue and his load drips down her leg. His victory as a man was preordained. But a fag is still a potential phallic threat and analingus by one male is traditionally the prelude to his penetration of the other. The power dynamic between man and fag is already given to instability, so I don't think a dominant male should allow himself to be treated in any way that even suggests he might be penetrated. I don't put a lot of limits on male sexual prerogative, but as far as I'm concerned, the man has a duty to maintain strict discipline in this regard. A man's anus should be off limits. At least, that should be the default assumption. You should lick his perineum, but go no farther unless he demands it.

It's not intended to be comfortable for my victim, but I haven't gone to the extent of requiring that he snort it up into his skull. I mostly want to enjoy his reaction to having his nostrils gunked up with my seed. I further expect the sensation and smell to form a strong memory that reinforces my power over him, even if he just ends up snotting my load out on a tissue or rinsing it out in the sink. But if it doesn't have that effect and he's ungrateful for my degradation and abuse, then he's the wrong boy for me anyway.

If I'm just after pure fuck pleasure, I'll grab his head and jam into his throat as deeply as I can. It's tight and I l like making him choke while I seed. If I'm in a deliberate breeding mood, especially with a younger boy, I'll control his head by grabbing his hair and dump my seed mid-way into his closed mouth so that I can watch him really taste it and then make him swallow. If I want to punish him or otherwise assert ownership, I'll aim directly in his eyes or up his nose. A more general shot in the face is visually pleasing, but doesn't accomplish much otherwise.

You can practice with dildos, gradually increasing depth and girth. But you might just have to be prepared to puke a lot. You should only ever get throatfucked on an empty stomach, and you should be honest with men that you are likely to vomit when they go deep. Establish a signal so that they can prevent your stomach acid from touching their cocks. Give men control, as always. There are men who actively enjoy making fags puke. You should probably seek them out and beg them to forcefuck your throat until your gag reflex is all but dead.

It's out of business: [think before following links] https://www.ebar.com/news/latest_news//294955

What was the nature of the wreckage? I'm interested in any gory details you'd share.

Yes, perfect. Abortion on paternal demand enables the quintessential male pursuit of raw breeding without consequences. A man could impregnate at any time and have the responsibility eliminated at his convenience. Glory and freedom would be his in equal measure.

Breeding is the conscious act of a man forcing his seed into a fertile bitch cunt. I always want the boy to conceive.

Not casually. I do have the urge to lick it before I stick it, but the snatch has to be both naturally hairy and scrupulously clean in and out. A light rinse won't do it. I wouldn't trust a stranger to do a thorough job. If it is deeply clean, I can see tonguing out my seed, or preferably the seed of a better man who claimed the cunt first.

Faggot females should primarily obey and endure with muted vocalizations of pain and pleasure. They do not give orders. Men fuck to breed, so they ask "do you want my load"? only as a test of faggot loyalty and gratitude. They're demanding worship, not asking for permission. Enthusiastic begging is the only correct faggot response.

I've followed men to the bathroom and knelt next to the toilet with my mouth open and a pleading look on my face. It doesn't always work.

I don't think I thought much about it. When I was with the first man, he told me to do it and I was naturally enthralled at first taste.

Yes, and I've come to regard enduring this abuse as a measure of submission. I expect to be able to ejaculate in a faggot's eyes. I wouldn't do it in often, though, because there's probably a small medical risk. Urine is probably safer.

Use of force is essential. Giving my throat and airway to a man so that he can use it as cunt is an act of surrender made in exchange for experiencing the glory of his male power. I need to feel his hands tightly controlling my skull and watch him swell with pride in his penis as he chokes me on it, just because it feeds his ego.

A man with girth is a born sexual assailant. He can't put it in half way. A long, thin penis can go right down the throat quite far, but a thick one is like a battering ram. It's a glorious impaling. But mostly I want to feel that the man himself, and not just his penis, is intent on invading and exploiting me. A big dick can be an amazing weapon, but I value a man of almost any size who actively and freely enjoys forcing himself into my throat and is totally obsessed with his own pleasure.

I am not a Trump supporter, and even if I were, it would not be because he's a masculine ideal. You're just randomly spouting the latest talking points, apropos of nothing. Biden's task, had he been trying competently to win an election, was to try to convince these million voters to choose him over Trump. He instead elected to mock them by way of defining them out of their own race. Perhaps Trump's support has eroded such that these voters are now considered disposable, but I would think that the marginal failures of 2016 ought to be regarded as monitory.

In the millions, on the order of millions, one million. They're all votes now much less likely to go to Biden.

Millions of black people voted for Trump. Biden has had his (first) "deplorables" moment, months ahead of Clinton's exemplary schedule.

Biden's incoherence and Trump's incoherence are in no way mutually exclusive. But what do I know? After all, I "ain't black" and so can't appreciate Biden's superior logic and rhetorical skills.

I've never met anyone who employed such language, and it's not something I would ever seek. But if an aggressive male started using it against me, I would feel obligated to do what I could to validate and enhance his erotic contempt. It would be my duty to maximize his desire and psychological satisfaction. My principle is that the dominant penetrator gets whatever he wants in the moment, to the best of my availability to provide it. That's the ideal, but I wonder how far I could really go.

The party of Obama had four long years to find a candidate who could defeat this incoherent orange carnival barker, and managed to settle on one that's just plain incoherent. There is no political consequence harsh enough to reward such cowardice, incompetence, and stupidity, except for the unthinkable. It's atrocious.

This evaluation sounds rational, whereas @ErosWired does not seem to be referring to an impulse founded in logic. And you have chosen just two traits that he mentioned. But if we were to take it as a rational proposition, then I would say that there need be no strict separation between the categories of "jerk" and "male". If most men exhibit "jerk" behaviors over evolutionary time and across cultures, then I don't think there can be a simple distinction. Of course, the strength of this behavioral link would not be nearly as strong as the basic biological link between XY chromosomes and the development of the penis, testes, and sperm-production. Those correlations are virtual identities. But let's say the "jerk" correlation is 60% or even 20%. Those effect levels are still notable and bound to influence behaviors in others. I take it that you are a "true male", in the chromosomal and gross anatomical sense. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is starkly atypical of males in general, and usually deleterious to genetic propagation. The behavioral and reproductive differences entailed by a primary or exclusive sexual response to male bodies make it difficult for me to easily place male homosexuals in the broader "male" category. It's a "one of these things is not like the other" situation. I would say "Other". I consider reproductive distinctions fundamental. The vast majority of human beings have sexual impulses that are in line with their bodies' reproductive functions. They are male and female. The rest of us are something else, and since we are largely self-terminating, it probably doesn't matter much in the end what that thing is. "Other" or "both" or "neither" or "whatever": it's a catch-all pseudo-category for the irrelevant. They confound me also, in that my impulses are generally at odds with those of normal humans. Especially normal male humans. But I find it impossible to ignore them.